Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BroadHopper
I dare you to block my PMs.
|
Done.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Woodsy
I am sorry you cannot comprehend the "legalese" in the way this bill was written.
|
Woodsy, I understand the "legalese" just fine. And I understand HB1624 and SAE-J2005 just fine. And I have a reasonable understanding of noise quantification. And as I have said several times, I agree that SAE-J2005 is a great testing procedure that should be
added (not substituted) into our noise law. And I think HB1624 could be amended into a good bill, by changing it so it will not allow boats to be louder.
But SAE-J2005 does not set the increased dB limits that Rep Whalley has snuck into HB1624, and HB1624 leaves no "option" to the MP to continue with the status quo when they see fit. Right now, as it is written, HB1624 is a Trojan horse, and it is apparently you and Skip who fail to understand that (or perhaps you just want louder boats).
I'll repeat my question one more time;
Please show me where
in the text of the bill (in "legalese" or otherwise), it still allows the MP the option of testing new boats by the old method at 82dB? If you cannot answer that, please stop responding to my question with irrelevant jib-jab about my ability to comprehend legalese.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Woodsy
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
|